Global Warming is happening...on Mars

[Old Rocks]

The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.

The evidence for which is?

According to AGW scientists, climate change has dire consequences for humanity.

Yet they refuse to share their work. FOIA requests are delayed or ignored. Methodologies are not revealed. Dissenting studies are suppressed and dissenting scientists are punished.

AGW scientists are more concerned about publication and grants than they are about humanity.

Like I said: Irresponsible.

Which is simply a lie. They share their work all the time, you can find it in peer reviewed journals. What the dingleberries are doing is to create time consuming searches for details that are irrelevant.

 

[daveman]

The evidence for which is?

According to AGW scientists, climate change has dire consequences for humanity.

Yet they refuse to share their work. FOIA requests are delayed or ignored. Methodologies are not revealed. Dissenting studies are suppressed and dissenting scientists are punished.

AGW scientists are more concerned about publication and grants than they are about humanity.

Like I said: Irresponsible.

Which is simply a lie. They share their work all the time, you can find it in peer reviewed journals. What the dingleberries are doing is to create time consuming searches for details that are irrelevant.

Really? They share it? Then no one has ever had to file a FOIA request.

Oh, wait...

So, it's not a lie. You idiot leftists need to learn that something you disagree with is not a lie.

 

[Big Fitz]

Not at all.

Science knows, has compelling evidence of, and has a pretty solid understanding of the causes of nearly all the previous geologic periods of warming and cooling on our planet.

Just as it has a very good understanding of the current warming and the causes of that warming.

No. It thinks it does.

With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.

So what do the church 'scientists' think about the Earth revolving around the Sun, M. Galileo? Are you ready to recant?

Science is always our 'best guess' of how things work based on empirical repeatable evidence. That is how science is SUPPOSED to work. Assert, then provide the evidence others can test.

But we've left this realm in climatology a long time ago and now base conclusions on assumption, innuendo and hearsay, otherwise known as models and mathematical projections. Not the stuff of hard science, but of faith and philosophy.

Consensus of peer review was supposed to be, before it became absolutely corrupted, for the peers to then undertake their OWN study and repeat the experiments, discover where any errors may lie and then go forth. But with only computer models and assumptions... It's not science, it's opinion with heavier math PRETENDING to be science and objective fact.

 

[Greenbeard]

Explain this one warmers:

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

I used to think there were three camps:

• Those who accept anthropogenic forcings as a dominant driver of climate change.
• Those who believe non-anthropogenic forcings are the dominant drivers of climate change.
• Those who reject the notion that the climate is changing.

The last camp would be the "look, it's snowing!" folks or the "see, the oceans aren't rising, the ice isn't melting" people or those who challenge the measurement process or, presumably, those who issue challenges to "warmers." The middle camp are those folks who point to things like the Medieval Warm Period or alleged indirect evidence for increasing solar irradiance or other non-anthropogenic forcings to account for climate change.

But the more I look around, the more blurred the lines between those second and third camps become (despite the fact that, ostensibly, they hold completely opposite views on climate change). Rather, certain folks seem to seize on arguments for either position--non-anthropogenic forcings for climate change or no climate change at all--based only on what's expedient at the moment. Which implies their position has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a current period of climate change at all. I suppose that's obvious but it's still rather disappointing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers still cannot produce a single repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 spawns killer tornadoes, Cat 5 hurricanes (we were supposed to get at least one a year after Katrina, remember?) melts ice caps or even raises temperature

 

[The T]

Warmers still cannot produce a single repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 spawns killer tornadoes, Cat 5 hurricanes (we were supposed to get at least one a year after Katrina, remember?) melts ice caps or even raises temperature

These idiots are living on an unproven hypothesis driven by political goals.

That's all anyone needs to know. Peer review in their minds is a high five and a pat on the back...

 

[Trakar]

No. It thinks it does.

With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.

Science is always our 'best guess' of how things work based on empirical repeatable evidence. That is how science is SUPPOSED to work. Assert, then provide the evidence others can test.

But we've left this realm in climatology a long time ago and now base conclusions on assumption, innuendo and hearsay, otherwise known as models and mathematical projections. Not the stuff of hard science, but of faith and philosophy.

This is your assertion and it is either supported by compelling and verifiable objective evidence, or it is not. I see no scientifically compelling evidence for what you assert. if you have compelling evidences please present them.

Consensus of peer review was supposed to be, before it became absolutely corrupted, for the peers to then undertake their OWN study and repeat the experiments, discover where any errors may lie and then go forth. But with only computer models and assumptions... It's not science, it's opinion with heavier math PRETENDING to be science and objective fact.

If you have access to compelling scientific evidence that refutes or supports an alternative to the mainstream scientific theories of AGW, please present your evidence and understandings

 

[Trakar]

...(we were supposed to get at least one a year after Katrina, remember?)...

Please support this assertion with confirming reference or link.

 

[Trakar]

Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda driven science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.

Have you offered objectively compelling verifiable and generally unambiguous evidence that supports this contention of agenda-driven science? If so please link to, cite, or otherwise reference this material as I would be most interested in reviewing it. I have investigated and follwed climate science very closely for much of the last couple decades and am unaware of any such evidence.

 

[Trakar]

The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.

Quite possibly, in fact I'm sure that this is occassionally the case with individual researchers whether we are talking about the fields of Economics, Theoretical Physics, Climatology or any other field of scientific study. This, however, is not a reasonably compelling reason to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, any more than one oddfellow's penchant for "tapping his toes" in airport bathrooms is a compelling reason to dismiss and discard centuries worth of socially conservative considerations and contributions to the modern political discourse.

 

[Meister]

Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda driven science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.

Have you offered objectively compelling verifiable and generally unambiguous evidence that supports this contention of agenda-driven science? If so please link to, cite, or otherwise reference this material as I would be most interested in reviewing it. I have investigated and follwed climate science very closely for much of the last couple decades and am unaware of any such evidence.

Dude....Just look in this forum for other threads, it all there....links....cites...or otherwise referenced material.. Your new so I won't hammer on you. This has been hashed out before in this forum. You do YOUR own homework. I doubt that's what your looking for though.

PS....it's a shame that the only remedy is a socialism remedy, huh? curious about that.

 

[Trakar]

Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda drive science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.

Evidence for which is?

Go back over all the damn threads, roxie. There has to be no less than 2 dozen of them. It still won't change your mind what the truth actually is. Your part of the cult movement, son.

I have always been under the impression that it was obligated upon the person making claims and assertions to provide supporting evidences of their claims and assertions.

 

[daveman]

The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.

Quite possibly, in fact I'm sure that this is occassionally the case with individual researchers whether we are talking about the fields of Economics, Theoretical Physics, Climatology or any other field of scientific study. This, however, is not a reasonably compelling reason to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, any more than one oddfellow's penchant for "tapping his toes" in airport bathrooms is a compelling reason to dismiss and discard centuries worth of socially conservative considerations and contributions to the modern political discourse.

The work of an irresponsible scientist should not be accepted at face value. And AGW scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

 

[daveman]

Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda driven science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.

Have you offered objectively compelling verifiable and generally unambiguous evidence that supports this contention of agenda-driven science? If so please link to, cite, or otherwise reference this material as I would be most interested in reviewing it. I have investigated and follwed climate science very closely for much of the last couple decades and am unaware of any such evidence.

Dude....Just look in this forum for other threads, it all there....links....cites...or otherwise referenced material.. Your new so I won't hammer on you. This has been hashed out before in this forum. You do YOUR own homework. I doubt that's what your looking for though.

PS....it's a shame that the only remedy is a socialism remedy, huh? curious about that.

If solutions other than socialism were advocated, the motive wouldn't be questioned.

 

[Meister]

Evidence for which is?

Go back over all the damn threads, roxie. There has to be no less than 2 dozen of them. It still won't change your mind what the truth actually is. Your part of the cult movement, son.

I have always been under the impression that it was obligated upon the person making claims and assertions to provide supporting evidences of their claims and assertions.

Claims and assertions have been made....it's just an endless cycle. Do your own homework with the other threads....it's all there. I'm not going to waste my time to try and change your mind, that would be an act of futility, as you with me.

 

[Trakar]

The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.

The evidence for which is?

According to AGW scientists, climate change has dire consequences for humanity.

Yet they refuse to share their work. FOIA requests are delayed or ignored. Methodologies are not revealed. Dissenting studies are suppressed and dissenting scientists are punished.

AGW scientists are more concerned about publication and grants than they are about humanity.

Like I said: Irresponsible.

There may be some instances of behaviors and circumstances that could be portrayed in the manner you speak of. These, however, are neither widespread nor all-inclusive with regards to climate science. More importantly, despite the few outlier instances where such may have occurred, it apparently didn't involve any actual distortion or manipulation of data or significant scientific findings, as the results of even the few contentious studies (with regards to such issues) have generally been in full accord with the findings of the multitude of fully open source and data studies that make up the bulk of the research into climate issues.

 

[Big Fitz]

This is your assertion and it is either supported by compelling and verifiable objective evidence, or it is not. I see no scientifically compelling evidence for what you assert. if you have compelling evidences please present them.

Which is my exact point about your assertions. But since I don't have to prove something DOESN'T exist, you must prove that it DOES exist, the onus is on you, bigboy.

If you have access to compelling scientific evidence that refutes or supports an alternative to the mainstream scientific theories of AGW, please present your evidence and understandings

I'm sorry. Are we now supposed to accept that pink dancing/singing elephants don't exist? You've proof to show they don't?

Where's your proof for your allegations that MANKIND is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for climatological change on a global scale through the production of 'greenhouse gases'. Can you show me an experiment which I can repeat to confirm your assertations?

Just as a reminder, NASA, NOAA's surface stations, Mann/Jones and the East Anglia CRU have all been debunked as frauds in this manner, and therefore invalid as source material due to data bias (cherrypicked or deliberately biased placement of sensors) or deliberate deletion or false manufacture.

 

[Big Fitz]

Have you offered objectively compelling verifiable and generally unambiguous evidence that supports this contention of agenda-driven science? If so please link to, cite, or otherwise reference this material as I would be most interested in reviewing it. I have investigated and follwed climate science very closely for much of the last couple decades and am unaware of any such evidence.

Dude....Just look in this forum for other threads, it all there....links....cites...or otherwise referenced material.. Your new so I won't hammer on you. This has been hashed out before in this forum. You do YOUR own homework. I doubt that's what your looking for though.

PS....it's a shame that the only remedy is a socialism remedy, huh? curious about that.

If solutions other than socialism were advocated, the motive wouldn't be questioned.

There is allegorical proof that the issue is political and religious, not scientific.

I'm still waiting on my challenge for one private sector, non-governmental solution to the supposed problem.

 

[Trakar]

Dude....Just look in this forum for other threads, it all there....links....cites...or otherwise referenced material.. Your new so I won't hammer on you. This has been hashed out before in this forum. You do YOUR own homework. I doubt that's what your looking for though.

PS....it's a shame that the only remedy is a socialism remedy, huh? curious about that.

If solutions other than socialism were advocated, the motive wouldn't be questioned.

There is allegorical proof that the issue is political and religious, not scientific.

I'm still waiting on my challenge for one private sector, non-governmental solution to the supposed problem.

Persuading private sector entities to invest in making their operations and communities carbon neutral have always been a large part of the push to address AGW issues.
Though many of the following sites and discussions include public sector encouragements of private sector action, the also include many plans, ideas and the record of past private sector actions to address climate change.

http://europa.eu/epc/pdf/workshop/4-6_ajay_narayanan_presentation_-__brussels_april_12_2011_en.pdf

UN Leadership Forum Discusses Private Sector Role in Climate Change Solution - Climate Change Policy & Practice

Ceres - Igniting 21st Century Solutions for a Sustainable Economy — Ceres (Mercer: Climate change poses risk and opportunities for investors — Ceres)

There is actually a wide panoply of voluntary private sector addressments that have and can be implemented to help address issues of climate change, unfortunately, we've already waited too late for private sector solutions alone to do more than assist larger efforts by individuals and governments. If massive private sector initiatives had been instigated and maintained 3-4 decades ago, it may have been possible to significantly and predominantly address the issues of AGW without the need for any major governmental addressments. But that is water under the bridge and there is little sense in going down that coulda, shoulda, woulda discussion.

 

[Meister]

I guess we could just pay third world countries for our polluting sins like the UN wants us to.